From the story in today’s Globe West…
One question the city has to answer, [CFO Maureen Lemieux] said, is whether the extra sewer cost now borne by residents who water their lawns should be allowed to stand, since it could serve as a deterrent to heavy water usage.
While i agree with Cheryl Lappin that the second meter approach should be costed out, my prediction is it will be too costly for the benefit derived. In general there is an issue of to what extent any modifications to the current arrangement adds significant administrative costs to the equation. The city operates with a lean staff on the municipal side, so that’s an important factor to take into account.
Have there any actual analysis done to quantify whether and to what extent those watering their lawns in summer and being severely impacted? In theory this seems to make sense, but I’;d hope we have some hard data to support the thesis.
Not necessarily opposed, just seeing lots of questions [which we may have the answers to].
Is this the biggest first world problem Newton can think of? There’s something like 20% of families in the world that don’t have a clean glass of water right now, and we need to focus on some homeowner that wastes “between $1,000 and $3,000 per year in (just) sewer fees” (according to Mr. Turocy). $3,000 on just the sewer portion of outdoor water? Really? How much water could that possibly be?
Someone’s overstating the issue. No one home could possibly be using (wasting) that much water. And if they are — good luck to them and their excessive lifestyle.
But I would like to here more about the apparent discount certain large business are getting. What’s that about?
Someone tell me if I’m missing something here. This sounds like the unintended consequence is that it encourages people to water their grass. I like a green lawn as much as the next person but why would we lower the rate for homeowners who use water for something that isn’t necessary?
Thank you for asking, Gail. Yes, you’re missing something here.
My home in Newton was one of the few that had a second meter for lawn watering. I was told, but can’t confirm it, that there were about 40 homes similarly equipped. (A previous owner had installed it when there was a different rate for lawn watering.)
The way the city charges for using the sewer system is to meter how much water goes into your house and then add a multiple of the water fee to pay for the sewer usage. In the 22 years I lived in Newton the multiple was about 200%. I.e, a $1,000 water bill would become a $3,000 bill for water and sewer.
Because I had a second meter, I knew to the penny how much the city was charging me for sewer usage for water that never went into the sewer. I estimate, over the years, I was charged about $50,000 for sewer services I never used.
If I charged you $50,000 for cutting your lawn when I didn’t cut it, you’d have me arrested. That’s what the city has been doing to everyone who waters their lawns. The only difference between me and most everyone else is that I actually had a separate bill for it.
When I ran for office (you remember that, don’t you?) I called it the green tax. There’s no extra charge for having a brown lawn. But if you wanted it to be green, you have to pay triple the water rate to keep it green.
The issue is not about lowering the water rate. It’s about stopping the city from stealing from its homeowners by charging them for services they don’t use.
Jeff, this perhaps is like what Dan Fahey just pointed out in another thread about Newton taxpayers, who do not use the public school system, paying a large amount of money for a city service that they do not use. Your issue is bigger than just our sewer rates.
BTW, those second meters were installed in the houses of politically connected people for the purpose of avoiding sewer charges for their lawn systems and pools. Initially, those second meters only charged for the water, not its treatment. Too many people started applying for a second meter so the city ended that program. I have wondered over the years if second meter accounts were now paying full rates. From your comment, it appears they (you) now do.
Patrick:
I moved out of Newton in May, so I no longer receive water bills from Newton. However, when I lived there, there was no differentiation in rates between our domestic and lawn watering bills.
Some time after I moved into Newton (1991), Alderman Richard McGrath tried to get differing rates or some other reasonable treatment for domestic versus lawn usage. But as he owned a lawn watering company (coincidentally, he was my provider for the simple reason that he serviced the previous owner), he was attacked in the BOA as being biased. I don’t think he was.
Perhaps a question to be asked is, When should the city tax everyone for a service and when should it engage in individual billing, as it does for water and sewer? The answer is whether it’s possible, or makes economic sense, to measure individual usage. If one can do that, then that’s how it should be done. It’s only fair.
It makes no sense to meter individual usage of the streets, or snow plowing, so everyone is bulk taxed to cover that city maintenance expense. Water usage goes through individual meters, so it can be measured, home by home. Perhaps it shouldn’t have been done that way in the beginning, but that bridge was crossed long ago.
I think another issue is that recognition of the fact that lawn watering doesn’t use the sewer system and therefore, shouldn’t be charged, is assumed to put a greater burden on the lower half of the economic strata because it’s the wealthier half that has big lawns. By stealing from them for years by charging them for sewer use they don’t use, they’ve been unwittingly subsidizing the sewer usage of those with smaller or no yards.
Also, the city doesn’t want to give a break to commercial properties that have large lawns. They too have been subsidizing lower income people.
I think, regardless of the politics, if the city has the ability to meter separate usage, it should. Perhaps that requires the city to install second meters, or perhaps individuals should pay for it. I don’t know how much it costs and I’ve never given it much thought, but it’s very doable…no more difficult than having a plumber install a shutoff valve.
Jeff, you raise multiple good points. I tend to agree with your thinking. I would be interested to know how golf courses (public and private) and educational institutions are billed for their extensive non-sewer using water usage. (BTW, I selected and have been using McGrath’s services for 27+ years because I am pleased with their employees’ work. I liked that he was a local business owner.)
If the city was to move towards a two water meter system again, a person could argue that school services are “metered” also since the city knows the home addresses of the students. This could lead to a discussion about restructuring how NPS costs are covered. My problem with that is that method could be construed as tuition for public education. That would be a big problem for me. Also the costs for non-resident teachers’ children and Metco students would need to be addressed (not here; save that for other threads please).
At some point people will need to collectively determine the balance between paying only for services used and paying into the infrastructure of a community. Not an easy answer to find.
I wonder if the residents who are in favor of second-metering for outdoor water also favor pay-per-throw for trash, by Jeff’s logic of only paying for the volume of services you use.
While I’m not as opposed to this change as I would be if we were in an actual water shortage situation, I can’t really support it either. Although we get our water from the Quabbin Reservoir, which I believe for years has been virtually full, the reason it’s full is that we get plenty of rain most of the time, which makes lawn-watering not even necessary most of the time. It seems reasonable to me that outdoor watering, which is discretionary, subsidize water used for necessities like washing, cooking and toilet-flushing. And a bit unseemly, perhaps, to make lawn-watering less expensive just because we have plenty of water, when other communities in Massachusetts as well as other states and countries, suffer from water shortages. And if paying sewer fees on outdoor water is such a burden, why do we see so many sprinklers running even when there’s rain?
And I definitely would not use the winter water use method of determining indoor water use, for the reason noted by some aldermen in the article, that some people go away for the winter. Bills should be based on real numbers, not guesses.
I can think of two possible arguments in favor of second metering (but only assuming continued MWRA water surplus). Maybe green lawns are not just nicer looking, but keep summer temperatures lower than dormant grass? (Although watering often goes along with higher fertilizer use, which is not so good for the environment.) Another reason might be if there was such a surge in lawn watering that it somehow lowered everyone’s per-unit cost of indoor water by spreading the MWRA water bill over a larger volume. I don’t know if that’s even possible — there would have to be a lot people not watering now, who would start or do more if it were less expensive.
There is no inherent downside to providing separate water meters for irrigation systems, provided that the homeowners pay for installation of the meters – it merely provides an additional layer of insight into who is using water for what purpose. All of the discussion here is focused on what is done with that information, and, aside from the judgments as to whether a homeowner should be allowed to irrigate in the rain or have a green lawn when others go thirsty, it’s all productive discourse. I think we all agree, in general, that people should be charged based on the municipal services they use (provided that it’s not a binary decision such as whether or not Newton should have stable and quality schools), and that it’s a good thing for those that “have” to help subsidize basic services for those that “have not”.
But levying a sewer charge on people for water that’s irrigating their lawns and not entering the sewer system is wrong. If someone has well water and a septic system they don’t get charged for sewer, and this is practically the same thing. However, one thing I think we’re all overlooking is that the rate for the use of irrigation water can be highly variable. If Quabbin is full and no drought is forecast, irrigation water should be charged at a rate that covers its treatment, delivery, and operation and upkeep of the treatment and delivery systems. If people want to irrigate in the rain, fine. Weird, but fine. But if there’s any hint of an impending shortage, the city should warn of an irrigation rate increase and then implement it. If people don’t heed the warning, they pay the higher rate. If they’re paying attention, they can decide if they want to keep watering or dial it back.
Finally, if you want to factor a drinking water subsidy for low income families into any irrigation rate, go for it. I’d bet that only a fraction of irrigators would complain, and those that do can pound sand. I personally have a problem with anyone irrigating their lawns while telling underprivileged thirsty families to eat cake.
Patrick:
1. During the debates over whether to install natural grass or artificial turf at Newton South, it was revealed that the city calculated into the cost of natural grass the sewer-included rates. That, of course, made no sense. Just more of the nonsense that highlighted the David Cohen era. The city could very easily have either a) excluded the municipal system from paying for sewer treatment it wasn’t using, b) drilled wells, or c) use rain water runoff from the extensive roof system at South. All these solutions were explained to them, to no effect.
2. It’s doable but makes no sense to meter kids’ water use (of bathrooms and water fountains) in schools. Use RF badges. But that solution would undoubtedly be worse than the problem.
Julia:
1. Some municipalities do employ pay-per-throw trash pickup, either by buying trash bags (Newton does that a bit, if you have more garbage than the provided can affords you) or garbage trucks with scales built into their pickup arms. The former was rejected because residents were already paying for pickup through their property taxes, so pay-pr-throw would have been a tax increase and offer no benefits. The latter was too expense and more trouble than it was worth, what with billing by the pound. We settled for the system now in use, which is what most towns employ.
2. The necessity of lawn watering is a matter of taste of the homeowner, but having green lawns adds value to the community. As I was sensitive to the cost of water, I experimented with increasing and decreasing the amount of watering. While there are times when the rain does a good job, cutting back on water, over time, has a noticeable affect on the lawn.
3. I’m not asking anyone to make lawn watering less expensive. I’m asking that the city stop ripping people off by charging them for expensive services they don’t use. People who water their lawns should pay for the water, just like everyone else.
4. Sprinklers sometimes run in the rain because they’re on automatic systems. Regardless, the water they use should be metered and paid for…but not have the additional sewer treatment charge.
Ethan:
No one is “telling underprivileged thirsty people to eat cake.” However, if there are people living in expensive Newton who can’t afford water, then they ought to consider moving to a more affordable community.
Jeff Seideman — In rough numbers you’re saying that a homeowner like you should have spent about $2,500 annually on sewer charges for outside water. Newton’s sewer charge is about $10 per Hundred Cubic Feet of water (HCF = 750 gallons). That’s roughly 200,000 gallons over maybe 20 weeks? Per day that would be around 2500 gallons. Is this possible, or is my math wrong?
Jeff, you missed my point. I said if someone could afford to irrigate their lawn yet had a problem with a “luxury tax” to subsidize thirsty underprivileged families’ access to clean drinking water, then I would have a problem with that. I feel qualified to weigh in here, since I irrigate my lawn and would be happy to pay for a subsidy, but not for a sewer service I don’t use (for the irrigation water). But your comment, “However, if there are people living in expensive Newton who can’t afford water, then they ought to consider moving to a more affordable community” is one of the most disgusting things I’ve read in a while. Shame on you.
Ethan:
I didn’t move into Newton until I could afford it. I’ve moved out because it was costing too much to stay there.
What’s wrong with saying that Newton’s the high priced spread and that those who can’t afford to live there, shouldn’t?
I think it’s outrageous that some people think they have a right to ask others to subsidize their housing in Newton when for the same, unsubsidized spending they can live in very nice nearby communities. I do.
Jeff,
You’re so far off base here that I don’t think I can bring you back, but I’ll try, as much as an irrigation thread allows. The city is currently under investigation by HUD for this kind of elitist exclusionary thinking, and many of us value the richness that comes from a diverse community. We dare to think that it cheapens Newton to restrict citizenship to those who can afford some upper class image that the unenlightened few have concocted. This isn’t the central point of this thread, but if the price of water is conspiring to prevent anyone from living in Newton then it needs to be addressed, and I for one would welcome an additional charge. It’s about time we adopted the global attitude of stewardship, both environmental and economic – that those who are privileged assuredly got that way, in part, through random chance, and it is their obligation to help offset the struggles of those to whom chance was less than kind.
Ethan:
No need to try to bring me back. I’m talking simple and reasonable logic.
It’s like saying to someone who complains that they can’t afford a Cadillac that they ought to consider a Chevy.
I sense some upper class guilt in your commentary that I don’t share. Despite what you might think, Newton doesn’t “restrict citizenship” to anyone. No more so than the above mentioned Cadillac is available to all. However, as with Newton, desire it as we might, not all can afford it.
If someone’s finances are so marginal that the cost of water prevents them from living in Newton, they need to recalibrate what they think they can afford and make their residency choice accordingly. This concept is not elitist, it’s basic economics.
The way those of us who lucked out in life, as you would have it, can help those who didn’t, is not by offering handouts, but by offering sound fiscal advice that helps them bring their standard of living in line with their resources.
It took my wife and myself eight years of saving — and a big mortgage — before we could afford to move into Newton.
You might say you value the “richness that comes from a diverse community,” but you chose to live in Newton, not Jamaica Plain, Somerville or Mattapan.
I think we’re confusing being well off, and being wasteful. Some of the richest among us would see 2500 gallons of treated water per day flowing outside (rain or shine) as wasteful. The ethic part of the charge is that system itemizes it. There’s no ethic issue in professional circles that I know of to charging an overhead component to any basic service. It would be no problem at all to say the cost of water delivery is $17 per 750 gallons for all buyers of the product (imbedding the sewer treatment into the basic delivery).
Jeff,
This is the last attempt I’m going to make to reach you, and then I’m going to stop boring the rest of the readers on this thread with lessons on fundamental citizenship. This concept you seem to have that entire cities should be off limits to those less fortunate is appalling. I moved to Newton because it has far more diversity than other neighborhoods that have good schools for our kids, and I vote and write to try and make it more so. You can try to make yourself feel better by writing this off as some sort of guilt, but you cannot escape the fact that denying anyone residence whether it’s through lack of affordable housing, prohibitive utility costs, or burning a cross on their front lawn is segregation, pure and simple. If that’s your viewpoint, I’m glad you left Newton. I welcome anyone except the unwelcoming.
Ethan:
You’ve got to be kidding.
This started off as a reasonable and rational discussion of linking sewer charges to water usage, particularly when the water didn’t end up in the sewer system. That’s people — a lot of people in Newton — being charged thousands of dollars for services they didn’t use. There are a number of easy fixes for righting this wrong.
But then you turned it into a social justice rant and your willingness to overcharge to satisfy your personal politics. And of course you’ve gotten nasty.
Where in anything you’ve read on this string of comments is anyone saying “entire cities should be off limits to those less fortunate?” That’s another of your bizarre interpretations.
Newton, as it should be, is open to everyone. But there’s no reason in the world why those who want to live here, but can’t afford it, should be subsidized by those who are actually less well off than they are. What cojones! When last I looked, families making less than $87,000/year qualified for subsidized housing. Many in Newton, who would be paying for that subsidy, actually make less.
I suspect that you and other social justice types who chose to live in one of the least diverse communities in Massachusetts are desperate to assuage your guilt, and you do so by trying to spend other people’s money on your feel good schemes. I opposed such nonsense when I lived in Newton and I oppose it now.
And now you are trying to equate not wanting to be charged for services not used as burning a cross on a front lawn?!? Get a grip.
My favorite thing about the deluded self righteous is their incessant need to conveniently identify themselves, pausing only to accuse the conscientious of their own shortcomings.
So what do the rest of you think about a separate, dynamic rate for irrigation meters?
Jeff, I was not talking about water usage in the schools. I was suggesting the scenario where only households with children in the schools would pay for the school part of the city’s budget.
Jeff, regarding Ethan, let it go. You cannot change Ethan’s thought process. He is either forgetting, “conveniently forgetting”, or hoping the rest of us have forgotten that the national housing crash occurred primarily because the government forced banks to write mortgages for people, who could not afford the monthly payments. To him, diversity is good except when it comes to the level of work expected to acquire wealth. Ethan missed the intent of your comment about Jamaica Plain, Somerville and Mattapan. I am guessing he is not satisfied with Newton’s current demographics, which are posted on the city’s website. He does not want to have a meaningful discussion; he wants to dictate to you how we should live in Newton. Why else would he escalate the emotional tenor of his comments by including a burning cross reference? He seems to have placed himself above the mayor, BOA, and SC in deciding how Newton should operate. I missed his name on the latest voting ballot.
He states he moved here; I grew up here. He has a right to want to change Newton to be more to his liking as long as he does it peacefully and within the laws of the land. I, and all legal residents, have the equal right to maintain what has been established here under existing laws and regulations. This peaceful tug-of-war is what makes this country a great place to live, even it is does generate frustration at times.
Patrick, all I want is a meaningful discussion. Your misinterpretation of the cause of the housing market crash, your personal attacks, or your perpetuation of Jeff’s exclusionary smallmindedness do not qualify. If no one else is still interested in actually solving this problem, I’ll leave you both to it.
Etahn, I question your sincerity about a meaningful discussion. You denigrate Jeff for being fiscally responsible by waiting to move to Newton until he can afford it without the use of public funds provided by other taxpayers. And then he voluntarily moves out of Newton when he determines he no longer wants to pay the higher taxes and fees for standard services.
I will take my own advice and let it go.
Patrick, I respect your and Jeff’s dedication to fiscal responsibility. I’m not trying to say that it should have no place in Newton life, quite the contrary. But I also believe that people end up in lower tax brackets through no lack of effort and responsibility, and maybe it’s just my naive wish for Newton that it can find a place for these people too. If you read back, this all started with me saying that I’d be much happier paying a subsidy for underprivileged residents than a sewer charge on water that’s soaking into the ground. As you deftly point out, it’s not my place to say what Newton would do with the extra money I’d be willing to pay, nor is it my intent to do so. I’m just a resident, relatively newly-minted as you deduce, that would be happier if my water bill were for services rendered with maybe a little extra tacked on for those less fortunate than I. No mandate, no guilt.
Patrick:
Thanks for your thoughts. You’re right. I’ll let it go.
I am one of those who moved from city so I could have a front yard, and my children could play in the back.
I would be glad to incur the costs of paying for the second meter – it just seems fair. Besides, the second meter would pay for itself.
If you convert apartments into condos in Newton, City Hall doesn’t let you have separate meters. They say they can’t trust where the old pipes are going. How would the city know that a meter that was originally for outside water will always serve outside? We have so many problems with where developers are putting storm runoff pipes for example (ie, into sewer lines which costs the City a lot), why make more problems in this department?
I think Jeff Seideman and Patrick made better points than Ethan Butler.